Elon Musk Has Already Built an Interplanetary Colony: It’s Called X

For over a decade, Twitter served as a virtual town square where everyone from celebrities, journalists, and influencers, to politicians, entertainers, and heads of state congregated alongside the rest of us. 

Twitter became like the public record – a place for news, information, argument and dissent. It was real-time, fast-paced, and unparalleled in the world of social media. But whatever happened to what SpaceX founder Elon Musk called the “world’s town hall” when he took over Twitter, that open space no longer exists.. 

For many of us who used Twitter as a source of real-time information, transitioning to X was like moving to another planet. Instead of light, there was dangerous radiation. Instead of breaths of fresh air, toxic fumes. Instead of reaching out to fellow explorers, we were lost in space with huge time lags in transmission home.

Our old friends and associates had scattered in a desperate attempt to find a more hospitable home. We were alone in a strange land, and the man leading the entire thing seemed too caught up in memes and self-congratulatory tweets to pay any attention to the chaos over which he now reigned. 

In short, we got a trial run of what it was like to live on Mars – entirely captured by the whims of an oligarch. Looking back, it’s now clear that this was not an isolated event, but rather part of a larger takeover of our digital environment by money-hungry tech companies and powerful billionaires. By seizing control of the pipelines that deliver information, they are effectively holding us hostage from afar. This is the story of how it happened.

---

Unseen Curators

Most Americans think censorship is about banning books, deleting tweets, or deplatforming dissidents. And depending on where and who you are, this can indeed be a primary form of censorship. But in 2025 in America, the most widespread and insidious forms of censorship aren’t about takedowns or suppression of speech – rather, they’re about tuning the algorithm. 

Quietly, subtly, and almost always with plausible deniability, the Trump administration appears to be executing a playbook of what can best be described as reverse algorithmic capture: a process through which government pressure reshapes the architecture of digital platforms, not by direct control, but by engineering incentives that guide algorithms to amplify preferred narratives and suppress dissent. 

Of course, you don’t have to go to Mars, but if you don’t, we can’t promise that there will be enough food and water to sustain you. The choice is yours

Put differently, it’s the state using soft power to realign platforms’ invisible gates toward ideological conformity – but never giving up that element of distance and plausible deniability.

This strategy does not need to issue censorship orders or serve warrants to Silicon Valley tycoons. It works by shifting the terrain on which digital gatekeeping occurs. 

In July 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government. It requires that all artificial intelligence systems used by federal agencies be scrubbed of “ideological bias,” including references to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), critical race theory, and other progressive frameworks. 

Although the order ostensibly applies only to federally procured AI systems, its ripple effects stretch much farther. Any company hoping to win government contracts must now conform to these ideological guardrails – not just in internal memos and tools, but in the public-facing models they train and sell. That includes the algorithms that shape search results, feed curation, ad targeting, and content moderation on platforms like YouTube, Meta, and X. It would be like telling every planet in the solar system that they have to abide by the rules set by SpaceX if they want to continue their relationship with the Sun. 

Essentially, these decisions determine what information and content – as well as content creators – you see or don’t see, and have a lasting effect by defining the parameters of acceptable discourse and content.

Trust us. Land on Mars is being divided up equally, and we would never think of short-changing you or depriving you of your share of precious resources that may exist on the planet. What’s that — you want proof? No one else is demanding proof. You don’t want to cause any trouble, do you?

---

Capturing the Platforms

Furthermore, the executive order specifies that AI systems must be “ideologically neutral” which … isn’t a thing. Ideology, by definition, is not neutral. 

Opposing ideologies are simply different viewpoints on how to run a state. It’s not bad to have an ideology, and neither left nor right is inherently good or bad, nor correct or incorrect all the time. The fact is that if an ideology exists at all, then there is no neutrality. 

Furthermore, there are many instances where neutrality is not the desired state. When there is a clear right and wrong or an indisputable true and false position, we don’t want artificial intelligence systems that can’t or won’t tell us which position is correct or incorrect. We don’t want artificial intelligence systems that are so afraid of appearing ideologically biased that they refuse to tell us when something is true or false. At least, those of us who don’t want to live in an authoritarian country or get stranded on another planet don’t want systems like that.

As all of this was going on, YouTube was caught quietly relaxing its moderation guidelines, according to leaks verified by independent tech reporters. Internal training documents reportedly instructed moderators to allow more “public interest” content on sensitive topics—such as vaccine scepticism, climate change denial, election fraud claims, trans rights, and abortion rights – even if it contained potential misinformation. 

While YouTube publicly framed the move as a balance between safety and speech, the timing aligned closely with intensifying political pressure from Trump allies, who have repeatedly accused platforms of suppressing conservative viewpoints. 

The sudden change also represented a pretty significant shift in company policy, at least at that point in time. The result is an environment where not just controversial, but harmful content now flows more freely and reaches more people, while platforms get to shield themsel